[arca_vorago]

Because too many people these days are the "school is overrated, vocational schools are all we need" types who don't understand the basic value of going through the old philosophers... the title is case in point. To me it seems so obvious that there are numerous reasons that it just seems click-baity.

You know what they teach at the elite schools (like Eton for example) that most others don't? The trivium and quadrivium. Together, they form the seven liberal arts, and are a vital parts of the preperation for reading the old philosophers. More than that though, they are vital parts of having a well rounded education where knowledge at a base level in areas almost always elevates your ability to think well in others.

It is also extremely important to be able to go back and see how the old philosophers were right and how they were wrong, but also just to see the amount of wisdom they had. I'm a constitutionalist myself, so reading Montesquieu for example is a great way to dig into the meat of the underpinnings of the checks and balances system, for example. I hardly see a modern textbook get half as deep as him on the subject...

There is still vast amounts of wisdom to be gleaned from the old philosophers, and I highly disagree with the assertion of the author about it being more like poetry than knowledge.

[Matticus_Rex]

It's not a contradiction to love the old philosophers and also think that our society has a schooling problem that teaches too much, too badly, and often on the wrong topics.

Of the many people who have studied those philosophers over the years in schools, how many got anything out of it? I'd wager that a 1% guess would be a bit high. The time spent on that for the other 99% is pure waste. But how will we know which are the 1%? Well, we can't get a more blunt selection mechanism than teaching it to everyone, so any other selection mechanism is likely an improvement.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Could you define "got anything out of it" for me? And what is a universal item that literally everyone will use in their life? We could probably stop general education after grade 3 if that was the goal of education.

[ianai]

You know what would be great? A society where people can knowingly disagree on fundamental concepts with one another and remain mutually respectful and cooperative. And studying philosophy is a gateway to that. Students have very few things in common with most philosophers because most philosophers lived hundreds and thousands of years ago. But reading philosophers will show them their points in common, to various extents. I mean the contrast and comparison is against classes where students memorize the exact order of the US presidents and force read books to the point of hating them.

[criddell]

The liberal arts aren't going anywhere.

When I was in university, I think the opportunity cost of spending time on the humanities (what my school called their liberal arts program) was too high. There was a lot I needed to learn and not much time to do it.

Then I graduated and started working and over time I've been able to carve out more time to work on the gaps in my education. A couple times a year when Powerball gets huge, I'll buy a ticket and fantasize about being able to retire and immerse myself completely in that pursuit.

[gniv]

The title is a bit click-baity, indeed, but the article is interesting and worth pondering. It made me think about how we learn to think, about learning "by osmosis", about the "meta" in metaphysics, about the fundamental differences between "hard" sciences and "soft" disciplines like philosophy.

In fact I would argue that a version of this should be presented in the first lecture of a philosophy class.

Also, the author specifically mentions and rejects the poetry comparison explanation.

[DanAndersen]

As someone who has finished classes (and was firmly in the STEM camp while taking them), I do wish I had had something of the formal liberal arts that was taught historically. Does anyone have any recommendations for ways of self-teaching the trivium and quadrivium?

I've heard good things about "The Trivium: The Liberal Arts of Logic, Grammar, and Rhetoric" [0] but I haven't gone through it yet.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Trivium-Liberal-Logic-Grammar-Rhetori...

[watwut]

If you start to teach "the trivium and quadrivium" somewhere in poor rural part with no jobs and high social problems, the kids there wont become like elite students from elite families with great prospects and ideal environment.

For that matter, not all kids from great environment ends up in elite school or are even able to follow education with super higher speed and expectations.

[Confusion]

You basically repeat that ‘reading the old philosophers is important’ about three times, but give no reason for why that would be important and what exactly you would learn from that.

That they teach it at Eton is not a reason. At most a suggestion there could be a good reason for it.

To realize that ‘they were wise’ is not a reason. Why is that important to realize?

That there are ‘vast amounts of wisdom to be gleaned’ is a restatement, not an argument.

So whatever reading the old philosophers taught you, certainly not argumentation skills.

[whataretensors]

> More than that though, they are vital parts of having a well rounded education where knowledge at a base level in areas almost always elevates your ability to think well in others.

Is there any evidence of this? Liberal arts majors claim it but I haven't really seen any proof. The philosophy courses I took in college had professors with an air of smug self-righteousness and faux-enlightenment. It seems more likely that the people who study this stuff then backwards rationalize why it was important.

I also think "well rounded education" is a tactic to keep people under the misinformed idea that intelligence can be earned. Wisdom, maybe, but not intelligence. That's pretty well established to be locked in around 7.